Is there any particular reason that this article stops short of advocating the complete ditching of our outmoded and wasteful federal system - or at least, an extremely heavy overhaul that leaves only the most blatantly local issues in the hands of the State?

The discussion is timely and relevant, with the current pathetic stoush over GST revenues just the latest and most egregious example of the utter waste that this system represents. Apart from any other considerations, how many schools and hospitals could be built and run if we didn't have the trappings and overheads of a State bureaucracy?

If we are going to suffer a politician's broken promise, let us be absolutely clear who is responsible. I contacted my State representatives shortly after it became clear that they weren't going to implement the pre-2000 promise of the elimination of Payroll Tax, only to be told that they weren't bound by any commitments made by the Federal Government. So the GST went straight into their "let's pay ourselves and our mates more" bucket and hasn't been seen since. Duh?

Here's a thought. Let's plan the rebalancing of the system at the same time as planning to become a republic, and ask the public for their vote on it. I'm willing to bet that the outcome would be overwhelmingly in favour of the system with the least number of politicians in it. Which is, of course, why it will never happen.

The system with the smallest number of politicians would be a dictatorship. Our federal system protects against a complete concentration of power in the hands of the federal cabinet, and also offers the opportunity to test out policy ideas at a state level, where they can be compared against what happens in other states. The current fight is a result of the situation where one party rules in Canberra and the other in all of the states. If the Liberals had even one state, I bet things wouldn't be as aggressive.